From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18420 invoked by alias); 9 Jan 2019 18:11:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gnu-gabi-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: Sender: gnu-gabi-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 18393 invoked by uid 89); 9 Jan 2019 18:11:13 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Checked: by ClamAV 0.100.2 on sourceware.org X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_NUMSUBJECT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=H*f:sk:24c0c8d, H*f:sk:mvm5zux, H*f:sk:c0e26c8, H*f:sk:mvmva2x X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_NUMSUBJECT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on sourceware.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: mail-it1-f194.google.com Received: from mail-it1-f194.google.com (HELO mail-it1-f194.google.com) (209.85.166.194) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 09 Jan 2019 18:11:12 +0000 Received: by mail-it1-f194.google.com with SMTP id h65so12366327ith.3; Wed, 09 Jan 2019 10:11:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=vbCq15D35rjql0Uo85VvCZxwce1xAuwbpOND7fIiYxI=; b=okrYV989wcCRXpRTYz/T3iBdYvDjba92aj2wS/fnayxzXMp3dH/W/OomP/PtC1sITm C8lY8GskmUJwUsqBG6jXuFDGDivmwI2rAVwRDk/WduOeeZzrxMrsCfSRAUADtfJefsuo S4LTVyqQDNo1hL/oZQv4uFJGGcv0021YAw0NwTGc/VYsTjYd9bhYt6ZRk/iywxoES/Te FqnQYgpztk/0ilpgUOXE4gR6zBZajJYEuLzzOTVB3sgxAO7VXQCDeBU1gnqshEzLJsLm jNW5E+7pE9LZ/1wpMuUvn0qR54hiTEri+4AZhl5yZ9JIB+wbzDoofkCQmDeTHZfW/gPI kV9Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=vbCq15D35rjql0Uo85VvCZxwce1xAuwbpOND7fIiYxI=; b=NK3oQs+G5V5aad2LDt0JJojSO9n5Wm9GJ5q5glZCSJvdsxOJVt1/hXc62tSmoOEe1v ddRGlIVVBf3f7x4+5lT87pMKmBPLNkvmAXu9fRPwiG+khP5meVp7ceAA+qV+Z0+OqvWp Oo/4HSQjDfzH9L0X7WTImAJ2vBKJPuNLMfYXOF9fjXOROK3dtS56iYJiA+D/fSiGRj8L hVONGsLQN9YOlUJ5t9aZndJsP8V/8HAOeGxLjakyHT/hUno6HdKs6AO3pV6CG9Plyj3h +wVt4X9m3otNOde2Hq4+m7T48Qc39S8JAp2axre6uCxysPpZKYyN8cwW7BtALNDaZqQy fMZA== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukePWqjtrLuiEYlUTmJY4ehfSa4By9a3vZM4hlw+SJoauGVr3D7Z CvXiDacbV80DQ5v3INmDbZqVWIfu4KLmKULJ7Rs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN4D6bo2MSlEVpx9HygMeX5sswb0wdOZZ8AF/mOJ1fKLgkQpELMrACXZ9iStL1s8iBOM9xe+U5lDUsEGzm4VZAs= X-Received: by 2002:a24:4706:: with SMTP id t6mr4463252itb.109.1547057471211; Wed, 09 Jan 2019 10:11:11 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <24c0c8d8-44e6-ab81-bdfb-43af8b53323b@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: From: Cary Coutant Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2019 00:00:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: RFC Adding a section group flag of 0 To: Andreas Schwab Cc: Nick Clifton , "binutils@sourceware.org" , Rui Ueyama , Peter Smith , sguelton@redhat.com, gnu-gabi@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-q1/txt/msg00002.txt.bz2 > > The problem is that this does not make it clear whether a value > > of zero is allowed or an error. > > Why would the absence of flag 0 be different from the absence of any > other flag? I'm OK with adding a clarifying statement to the spec. -cary